Introduction
For nearly three decades, I have devoted my professional career to the defense of individuals accused of operating while intoxicated (OWI) and operating while visibly impaired (OWVI) in the State of Michigan. Over that time, I have developed an intensive, interdisciplinary command of the scientific instruments, roadside investigation protocols, and evidentiary frameworks that govern these prosecutions. Michigan courts have repeatedly qualified me as an expert witness in the standardized field sobriety test (SFST) battery, the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, and the BAC Datamaster evidential breath alcohol analyzer. I now devote a substantial portion of my practice to consulting and testifying as an expert on behalf of defense attorneys throughout Michigan.
This page provides an overview of my expert witness services and links to detailed subpages addressing each of the principal areas in which I have been qualified and retained. Each subpage is written for practicing defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and litigants who need a rigorous, source-based discussion of the scientific, statutory, and case-law issues that control whether a particular item of forensic evidence should be admitted, excluded, or challenged at trial.
Academic and Professional Foundation
I graduated from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, with a Bachelor of Arts in 1992, and from Wayne State University Law School with a Juris Doctor in 1996. I was admitted to the State Bar of Michigan in 1997 and have practiced continuously since that time as a criminal defense attorney with Maze Legal PLC, concentrating in drunk driving defense, civil asset forfeiture, and Freedom of Information Act litigation.
From 2021 through 2024, I served as an Adjunct Professor of Forensic Science at Madonna University, where I taught two graduate-level courses that are directly relevant to my expert witness work: FOR 4650, Ethics & Expert Testimony, and FOR/CJ 5230, Criminal Law and the Rules of Evidence. Teaching these courses required me to master, and to communicate to graduate students in forensic science, the ethical duties that constrain every expert witness, the analytical framework that governs the admissibility of expert opinion under MRE 702 and Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and the Michigan Rules of Evidence as applied in criminal proceedings.
My training in the specific disciplines at issue in DUI litigation is extensive. I completed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Practitioner Certification Course, and I have served as a trainer at NHTSA/IACP Live Alcohol Workshops on multiple occasions, including in 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2017. I completed advanced coursework in vision science as applied to HGN, factory training at National Patent Analytical Systems on the BAC Datamaster, and I have attended the National College for DUI Defense, the Michigan State Police Forensic Science & Toxicology Conference, the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training, and numerous other specialized programs.
Legal Basis for Qualification as an Expert Witness in Michigan
Michigan law provides an unusually specific statutory foundation for expert testimony on field sobriety testing. MCL 257.625s provides that a person who is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the administration of standardized field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, is permitted to testify subject to a proper foundation of qualifications. This statute operates in tandem with MRE 702, which authorizes expert testimony where the proponent establishes that it is more likely than not that the expert's specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact, that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, that the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the expert has applied those principles reliably to the facts of the case.
The practical significance of these provisions is best illustrated by the contrast drawn in my expert reports between my own qualifications and those of officers held sufficient to testify as experts in People v Davie (After Remand) and People v Peebles. In Peebles, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a police officer with roughly one year and seven months of service and four or five hours of training on the relevant field tests possessed sufficient knowledge, training, and experience to be qualified as an expert on the SFSTs. By contrast, I have participated in numerous training seminars, researched SFSTs and breath testing issues for over twenty years, taught the proper administration of standardized field sobriety tests to more than a hundred attorneys over the course of several years, and I am actively engaged in the science and study of field sobriety tests and breath testing on a daily basis.
I have testified on the record before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee regarding standardized field sobriety testing in 2015, and I have authored Witness Preparation and Examination for DUI Proceedings, published by West in 2012. I served as President of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (CDAM) in 2014 through 2015, I currently serve on the Board of Directors of the Michigan Association of OWI Attorneys, and I have been a member of the National College for DUI Defense since 2004 and of the DUI Defense Lawyers Association since 2021.
Areas of Expert Witness Practice
My expert witness practice is organized around five core areas, each of which is addressed in detail on a dedicated subpage. These subpages discuss the governing science, the Michigan and federal case law, the NHTSA training materials, and the peer-reviewed literature that bear on the particular area of expertise. They also describe my specific training, experience, and courtroom history in that area.
1. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs)
The three-test SFST battery—horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand—was developed under NHTSA contract by Tharp, Burns, and Moskowitz in 1977 and 1981 and subsequently evaluated in the Colorado, Florida, and San Diego validation studies. Michigan requires that officers administer these tests in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards, and the NHTSA materials themselves state that if any element of the prescribed protocol is altered, the validity of the test may be compromised. My detailed analysis of the scientific foundation and common administrative failures in Michigan SFST cases appears on the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) Expert Witness Services subpage.
2. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN)
The HGN test is the most scientifically contested component of the SFST battery. The vision-science literature, including the review by Rubenzer and Stevenson published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, has identified substantial variability in the underlying ocular behavior, poorly controlled testing environments, and a lack of rigorous laboratory validation. Michigan law explicitly addresses HGN testimony, and the Court of Appeals decision in People v Wyrybkowski—in which I represented the defendant—held that a defense expert must be permitted to testify under Daubert in a challenge to the HGN test. A detailed discussion of HGN science, administration errors, and defense strategy appears on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Expert Witness Services subpage.
3. Evidential Breath Alcohol Testing: BAC Datamaster and Intoxilyzer 9000
Michigan has used the BAC Datamaster as its primary evidential breath testing instrument for decades and has now transitioned to the Intoxilyzer 9000, manufactured by CMI, Inc. of Owensboro, Kentucky. Both instruments use infrared spectroscopy based on the Beer-Lambert Law and assume a population-average breath-to-blood partition coefficient of 2100:1, despite a documented range of individual variability from approximately 1300:1 to 3500:1. The peer-reviewed literature, including Aaron Olson's 2025 case-report study in Forensic Science International: Synergy, has identified systematic problems with minimum-volume requirements, measurement uncertainty, and physiological limitations that produce failed or inflated test results. I own two BAC Datamaster instruments and have conducted hundreds of experiments on them, as well as on the Alcosensor III and Lifeloc FC10 preliminary breath testing devices. A detailed discussion of infrared spectroscopy, filter selection, slope detectors, interferent detection, invalid sample codes, and breath graph analysis appears on the Breath Testing Expert Witness Services subpage.
4. Drugged Driving and Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Analysis
The published decision in People v Bowden, issued by the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2022, held that a Drug Recognition Expert's testimony purporting to conclude that a defendant was operating a vehicle while impaired by marijuana is inadmissible under MRE 702 due to a lack of scientific reliability. The Bowden decision, together with NHTSA's own 2017 report to Congress acknowledging that no scientifically validated methods exist to detect marijuana-impaired driving with the reliability of alcohol testing, and the peer-reviewed critique of the DRE validation studies published by Kane, has fundamentally altered the evidentiary landscape for drugged driving prosecutions in Michigan. A detailed discussion of DRE protocols, Bowden, cannabis pharmacokinetics, and defense strategy appears on the Drugged Driving and DRE Expert Witness Services subpage.
5. Training, Teaching, and Courtroom Qualification History
Expert testimony is only as reliable as the expert's underlying qualifications and the methodology actually applied in the case at hand. This subpage collects my academic and professional credentials, my teaching history at Madonna University and at Wayne State University's graduate forensic science program, my lecture and training record, my publications, my legislative testimony, and a chronological summary of Michigan court appearances in which I have been qualified or retained as an expert witness. It also explains the Michigan statutory and evidentiary framework under MCL 257.625s, MRE 702, MRE 703, and the ANSI/ASB Standards 036 and 037 that govern validation and expert opinion testimony in forensic science. This discussion appears on the Qualifications, Training, and Courtroom History subpage.
Retention and Consultation
I accept expert witness engagements from defense attorneys in Michigan and, on a case-by-case basis, in neighboring jurisdictions. A typical engagement includes review of the police report, in-car and body-worn camera video, the officer's SFST data sheet, the Datamaster or Intoxilyzer 9000 printout and calibration records, any DRE evaluation and toxicology report, and the officer's training records. I then prepare a written expert report that addresses the scientific and procedural issues identified, and, where warranted, I testify at motion hearings and at trial. Attorneys interested in retention are invited to contact Maze Legal PLC at 37211 Goddard Road, Romulus, Michigan 48174, or by telephone at (734) 941-8800.
